How Could Windows 9 Correct the Failings of Windows 8.0/8.1

How could Windows 9 impress us? What features need replacing, improving just plain removing? How should they have done Windows 8?
If Microsoft asked your opinion, what would you say to make Windows 9 Better for you?

DO NOT make Windows 9, 10, 11, etc. Or any other Windows version, ever.

Do what the UNIX/Linux community has (mostly) done for decades, which is to
steadily improve your already existing product (for me, this is Debian
Linux 'squeeze' v6.x.x).

OK, depending upon your interpretation of what is a 'new' OS, versus what
is just 'cosmetic upgrades' (eg a fancy GUI front end), some of you may say
(with, perhaps, *some* justification), that there have been 'new' Linux
versions (or UNIX versions) over the years.

I do not agree, however, with that opinion.

I can still use my beloved command-line, my sed, my awk, my vi, my emacs,
my lex/yacc, my nroff/troff, etc., etc., etc., on the Linux that I use
today, just like I could all those years (actually, decades) ago.

If Microsoft finally decided to go this path with Windows 7, they would, in
my opinion, be making a huge step forward.

Every 3 to 4 years, or longer (in the case of Windows XP, since 2001), many
of my customers are forced to 'upgrade' to the latest *working* version of
Windows, which as everybody here knows, is *not* Windows 8.0/8.1.

Why?

Honestly, unless you have been brainwashed by the Redmond people, there is,
in my opinion, absolutely *no good reason* for doing this, over and over
and over again. (Please see 'the definition of insanity'.)

I have talked with many, many people about this, including other computer
professionals like myself, who each have 30 to 40 years experience in
computer hardware and software, including Windows, UNIX, and Linux
Operating Systems.

And among this very select group of computer professionals, every single
one, absolutely every single one, agrees with me, 100%.

So, Microsoft, if you know what's good for you, you will cease this (in my
opinion) completely insane, and counter-productive, attempt to 'change
everything' every few years, and go with something which, as I stated
above, has worked (mostly) successfully for decades. In other words, just
keep upgrading and improving Windows 7.

Otherwise, you will be risking the fate that befell other companies, that
failed to 'stay with what works, just upgrade and improve it'.

DO NOT make Windows 9, 10, 11, etc. Or any other Windows version, ever.

Do what the UNIX/Linux community has (mostly) done for decades, which is to
steadily improve your already existing product (for me, this is Debian
Linux 'squeeze' v6.x.x).

OK, depending upon your interpretation of what is a 'new' OS, versus what
is just 'cosmetic upgrades' (eg a fancy GUI front end), some of you may say
(with, perhaps, *some* justification), that there have been 'new' Linux
versions (or UNIX versions) over the years.

I do not agree, however, with that opinion.

I can still use my beloved command-line, my sed, my awk, my vi, my emacs,
my lex/yacc, my nroff/troff, etc., etc., etc., on the Linux that I use
today, just like I could all those years (actually, decades) ago.

If Microsoft finally decided to go this path with Windows 7, they would, in
my opinion, be making a huge step forward.

Every 3 to 4 years, or longer (in the case of Windows XP, since 2001), many
of my customers are forced to 'upgrade' to the latest *working* version of
Windows, which as everybody here knows, is *not* Windows 8.0/8.1.

Why?

Honestly, unless you have been brainwashed by the Redmond people, there is,
in my opinion, absolutely *no good reason* for doing this, over and over
and over again. (Please see 'the definition of insanity'.)

I have talked with many, many people about this, including other computer
professionals like myself, who each have 30 to 40 years experience in
computer hardware and software, including Windows, UNIX, and Linux
Operating Systems.

And among this very select group of computer professionals, every single
one, absolutely every single one, agrees with me, 100%.

So, Microsoft, if you know what's good for you, you will cease this (in my
opinion) completely insane, and counter-productive, attempt to 'change
everything' every few years, and go with something which, as I stated
above, has worked (mostly) successfully for decades. In other words, just
keep upgrading and improving Windows 7.

Otherwise, you will be risking the fate that befell other companies, that
failed to 'stay with what works, just upgrade and improve it'.

Make it like XP
Keep (give it back to us) the option for users to have XP's Classic Start Menu (with small Icons)
Immediately stop removing/banning us from reverting to the way we worked previously.
Add their flashy graphical new approaches if they must, but allow us to easily revert to the way we previously worked, if we choose to.
Start hiring analysts, and immediately stop your hot shot young programmers from foisting stuff on to us, that most of us do not want.
Apply 'KISS'

Come on. Is Microsoft in the business just for the fun ?
No, they are on it to make money. Customers have the money so, if you can't supply a really useful and new product you must create the need.
That's how they do the big bucks. Companies are happy with XP, running in 5 or 6 years old PCs, they're paying support of course but they're at last learning to use it well, so they're not paying as much as they did for support. So, end support, force them to upgrade "or else"? And make sure they need new hardware. HP and Dell will like it, and Intel, and AMD, everybody. That's the IT world market.
In fact, this kind of market where you must run in order to not fall down, is what took us from the Z80 to whatever Intel is calling their CPU today (Core 7 ???) in less than 40 years.
Without it, we might be running 386 level graphical workstation with RiscOS or AmigaOS or OS/2 (Apple would not be viable in that kind of market) and some form of Unix on the servers with Netware based file sharing. Probably the internet would be 100x smaller, and a lot of natural resources would not have been spend. We'd be running our lives much slower without so much stress.

We might be running nowhere fast but we might be running up, if were able to reach a certain threshold before everything falls apart we might still be viable. Microsoft is doing its part, as is everybody that says that there is a much better way, that's what keeps the ball rolling.

I really have to strongly disagree. I support a number of Windows OS's
and having worked with (and used) XP, Vists, W7 and W8, I would *NEVER*
want to go back to the XP interface. When I have to use it, I feel like
I have both hands and one leg tied behind my back. My personal favorite
so far is the Windows 7 interface.

My suggestion, which some here seem to have *misinterpreted* as some kind
of 'attack' on Microsoft, was nothing of the sort.

My business makes well over 95% of its profits, from selling and
maintaining Microsoft products.

Believe me, I *do not* want Microsoft to fade into oblivion.

But that is, in my opinion, a serious possibility [Microsoft slowly but
surely fading into oblivion], if they continue going along this (in my
opinion) self-destructive path.

It is evident both here (from several of the comments), and in my own
private discussions, that there is a lot of 'pent-up anger' at Microsoft,
aimed primarily at their (again, in my opinion) choice to 'reinvent the
wheel' every few years, for no good reason.

My suggestion was intended to 'steer' Microsoft back onto a path which, I
believe, would allow the company to continue to grow and thrive for many
years to come.

Again, I would like to stress, that it would be a big disaster for my
company, and (obviously) many, many others around the world, if Microsoft
were to continue on its current trajectory, and eventually (over many
years) fade away and die.

Windows No doubt has evolved from Windows 95. Interface and Usablity had
definitely improved.
But I think Windows 7 Premium Was it. I think that was a maturity level.
Forcing People to Accept
Whats new is absolutely absurd. If am satisfied with something no one
should have the audacity to force change on me for the sake of it
I ve been using 8 for close to eight months now but never felt comfortable
and user friendly till today.
I think New version of their Products can be made available for those who
want it rather than force them on those who don't need it.
Windows XP itself was a great product and millions absolutely loved to keep
it for the rest of their lives I think.
No need of 9,10 etc.

I'll have to be the lone 30-years-of-experience professional to disagree with you, then.

Windows last 'major' overhaul was Windows 2000 and the introduction of Active Directory.
Every version since then - both server and workstation - have merely added features to the existing structure. No different from what you are saying has happened with Linux over the last few decades. Command Prompt is still there, just as it has been since Windows 3.

If you want to use the definition for a new OS the same way you make the case for Linux - that merely putting a new face on it doesn't constitute a new one - then you'll have to concede that Windows hasn't really been 'new' since 2000.

Otherwise, you'll have to concede that every *nix kernel release and subsequent recompiles of all distros constitutes a new OS and that all Linux/*nix are new OSes every few years.

The Linux community operates from a different business model. This is not
a reasonable suggestion for a variety of reasons...

*So, Microsoft, if you know what's good for you, you will cease this (in my
opinion) completely insane, and counter-productive, attempt to 'change
everything' every few years, and go with something which, as I stated
above, has worked (mostly) successfully for decades. In other words, just
keep upgrading and improving Windows 7. *

It's not like the Linux world hasn't had it's fair share of such debates
regarding Gnome, KDE and other interfaces.

And it's not like people haven't switched distros over those concerns.

Change is inevitable as you embrace different form factors, and when one
company is trying to embrace different form factors, this is a likely
result.

Not that I'm suggesting that they couldn't seriously improve on *execution*
of the plan...

Part of me feels it necessary to recognize that Microsoft is a legitimate company in business to make money. They have the right to do what they want...and the question is whether they need to listen to their customers.

That answer is, 'yes'. They need to listen because if they don't, their market share will diminish until they are no longer in business. That will come too soon for Microsoft, and not soon enough for its detractors. For those of us who use many of their products ...

I applaud the statement by Rob about hiring analysts rather than having hotshot (presumably young) programmers 'foist stuff' on us. I am reminded of a project in which I had some involvement where the lead programmer gave a status update that flew in the face of the business analysis completed prior to the start of coding. I asked when the pieces identified in the specs as 'A' priorities would begin showing in the application and was told that he had not, and would not be reading the specs. Funny ... his company required that we pay a substantial amount and use their staff to develop those specs.

It is ok to evolve product ... and may be important to do so. It is equally if not more important not to forget the product and its applicability in the process. Too often Microsoft seems to focus on whiz-bangs that it says are vital to our 'productivity' ... things that have nothing to do with what, how, why, or if we produce 'our' product. Mind you, I am not asking to revert to the way I worked previously, I am asking to stop being:
1) prevented from accomplishing what I accomplished previously
2) faced with upgrading formats in order to utilize / re-use my previous work product (and face obsolescence of product I have in storage that I did not hire someone to upgrade as formats changed).
3) in constant learning mode just to deal with UI. I enjoy learning and want to gain facility with my program 'tools'. I recognize the menu system in MS Office had escaped control ... the 'ribbon' just wasn't the answer. 'Metro' was okay for touchscreen, but that is not the desktop (or laptop as it is used for a desktop replacement) market. Make 'unified' UI an option if you wish ... it can work for browsing and email ... but that isn't the totality of computing at this time.
4) told what is 'good' for me. Aero / 3D for Vista and Windows7 now gone / 2D in the 'new and improved' Windows8? Development is fine ... but save 'flash' (not Adobe's) for applications, not the OS.

Now, Microsoft, to impress me ...
1) Issue a SP2 for Windows 7. Extend its support. Recognize that many businesses have just upgraded to this OS and they deserve to have a stable OS for a period of time. With the end of support for XP, providers of proprietary software used by SMBs are just getting it ready for Windows 7 (right or wrong on the timing) and cannot be expected to spend the money to re-modify for Windows 9 again in short order. Your 3 year cycle does not work in tight economies and in most parts of the world, the average business size is not 10,000+, its under 25.
2) Continue to stabilize Windows 8 for the sake of those using it. Who knows, you might gain some converts over time.
3) Take your time with Windows 9 and don't release it until it is right. If you expect business to adopt this, it needs to be ready out-of-the-box. The adage, 'Don't ask permission now (and be refused) when you can ask forgiveness later' only applies if the apology is rare. WindowsME, Vista, and 8 are too close together.
4) Stop appearing to 'force' users to maintain connections to Microsoft. I don't want to use my MS login to login to my machine. I use some MS productivity tools, but don't force me to use Office365. I use email that is not hosted by MS. As a company, I don't want you to host my backups ... and I have a right to make that business choice.
5) You do have some good product. Recognize that. You have been acting as if you must keep distracting me by change so I won't see your mistakes. I will see your mistakes. Help me relish in what you do well.

and last ...

6) I am part of the secondary market. I appreciate you pushing business my direction. I just wish you would listen to analysts. I want business ... but my business philosophy strives for happy customers, not disgruntled 'must adopt or dies'.

That would be a good solution.
I haven't tried it in some 4 or 5 years, but last time I tested it I could still run twm (probably the minimal x-windows window manager that you can get) on a linux installation.

Windows 7 was a very major departure from Windows XP, whole directory
structures were changed, they're not even remotely similar.

Just look at all of the comments here, re: WinXP's major differences
compared to Windows 7.

Things that run on XP *do not run* unmodified on Windows 7, which is the
true test of 'compatibility'.

The UNIX/Linux apps that I mentioned *do run* unmodified, after decades of
'changes and upgrades' to the OS. The directory structures of today are
extremely close (not absolutely identical) to those that I worked with 30
to 40 years ago.

You are, I believe, looking at things from a 'higher-level' perspective,
which is not what we are talking about here.

Changing whole directory structures (going from WinXP to Win7) was a major
change, which renders many, if not most 'lower-level' apps inoperative, if
you try to run the WinXP app on a Win7 system. Microsoft's 'kludges'
notwithstanding.

There are simple apps which run unmodified across many versions of
Windows. And there are complex apps that do not.
Likewise, there are apps which do not run without modification across
versions of Linux, especially across the 2.4/2.6 kernel boundary.

That said, XP is much more closely related to 2000, than to Windows 7

The major version number of Windows is an effective boundary for
segmentation.

Maybe MS have one of those 'Random' buttons, you know the sort, when you have a creative block on a photo and then you see the little dice button twinkling away, waiting for you to click it so it can create all manner of crazy effects. When they think its time to chuck out another OS they just click the Random button a few times.

That random button will probably be a hidden complicated set of clicks
and settings to get back to the "old" version of the desktop instead of
the irritating xbox version.

If Microsoft follows their usual path, the next Windows will look like
Windows 8. You will have a more difficult time changing it back to the
win7 desktop, but the Windows 9 xbox desktop will have brighter colors
and the edges may be trimmed with an attractive contrasting color. The
beveled attractive trim may have to wait for Windows 10.

Not sarcasm, just my experience.

Personally I'd like MS to put their heads around raid, a faster file
system that also combats bit rot, efficient use of larger memory space,
a working security model that isn't based on internal trust. You know...
operating system stuff. They'd need to use the geniuses they hire in
marketing and sales and maybe make them do work on the product instead
of designing colorful product identification and serialization tags.

I'm sure that Billy-boy was cackling his mad, evil laugh, when he was
dreaming up this one.

He just *loves* (in my not-at-all-humble opinion) doing things that drive
most sane people off the deep end.

He must have been thinking:
"Take THAT, you command-line weenies!"

For those of you who may not be completely up-to-speed on this subject,
*whitespace* (eg spacebar, tab, etc.) is the 'token delimiter' for just
about every command-line parser, that I've ever seen.

In other words, it tells the parser just where each 'token' begins and ends.

To put whitespace *in the middle of a token* is so unbelievably,
fantastically wrong, that Billy-boy must have partied all night, in
celebration.

Well, with the advent of 'The Cloud(tm)', the actual OS that people run, is
becoming less and less important. The 'desktop' system then just becomes a
big 'smart terminal', and you *don't really know or care* what OS it runs
(for the most part, anyway).

I also have a lot of people who are now exploring alternatives, either as a
stand-alone OS, or in a dual-boot system with Windows 7.

The big 'driver' for this, is (of course) Microsoft's end of support for
Windows XP.

About the most popular alternative (to MS products), in my recent
experience here, is a dual-boot system with Debian Linux (squeeze) v6.x.x,
and Win7.

Customers use OpenOffice on the Linux side, because it is 'free', when they
want to use (the equivalent of) Microsoft Office.

Many of my customers tell me, that they use the 'Linux' side over 90% of
the time, only switching back to Windows 7 when there is something that
absolutely does require Windows.

That's why I say, that Microsoft cannot 'bully' people around anymore,
forcing them to 'accept', or even *like* (please see 'Stockholm Syndrome'),
that latest 'feature' (I call it a bug) in whatever new software Microsoft
puts out.

That worked in the past.

But it will *not* work in the future. People will just abandon MS products
altogether.

@ Art Johnson
I'm going to have to assume that "this very select group of computer professionals" is aware that incremental updates would not have been possible between the DOS based 3x/9x series of Windows and New Technology aka NT. The OS went through a major overhaul yet maintained binary compatibility with the prior versions. This was not a cosmetic change but a total overhaul of the OS made all the more impressive by its ability to run code designed for Windows 3x through 9x.

Where would we be now if Microsoft had followed your advice and only made incremental changes like you suggest? I'd put myself out there and guess that Microsoft would not be the powerhouse it is today.

Since the NT revolution, Microsoft has only had minor tool enhancements, GUI changes, and changes necessitated by modern hardware. But again, I can only assume that "this very select group of computer professionals" knows all of this already which would make me question their wisdom and views on the subject.

The Linux model of incremental upgrades (and understand I am a Debian fan myself) is great but even downstream Debian vendors like Canonical version their products and they do so for a very good reason... support. Just like Debian freezes the stable build every few years, having a common base to work with makes support and compatibility a possibility. Attempting to support an OS whose components have been, by user selection, incrementally upgraded is nearly impossible since the mix of versions can be an almost infinite conglomeration of tools the user wants upgraded and those they do not.

This is one of the many reasons why Debian is version 7.4 and not just Debian Stable - sans version. Also, though you can upgrade to a new Debian version, don't gloss over the fact that such a procedure is strongly contraindicated by the community. Most businesses will install new Debian versions whenever possible rather than upgrade through full version numbers.

Finally, let's look down the road. We know the Linux kernel will be forever divorced from the the rest of the OS so the incremental update path is possible. However, with Windows, the kernel is much more tied to the OS. All versions of Windows since 2000 have use the NT kernel and that's great. Since 2000, Windows has had only incremental upgrades as you suggested. But what happens when a MS tried to push us forward with a new kernel. A new new technology if you will. There would still be a need to do a new installation just like between 98 and 2000, there would be no upgrade path.

So, you can see that an incremental path is only possible if the kernel is divorced from the rest of the OS which Windows is not nor has it ever been. This pretty much turns your point of view in to "Microsoft would be better if they didn't make Windows but instead used Linux" and as anyone can see, that's an untenable position to take.

Me, I want Microsoft to continue the path they have chosen. It works well for them and most of the users I support. Both approaches are needed to keep IT growing and healthy.

As for what I think Windows 9 should do to make up for 8? Give me a server without a touch-centric interface.

Sorry for the double post, but I can't let this one stand. It borders on misinformation and stating that scladmin's post is "absolutely not true" requires more evidence that simple assertation.

@scdladmin
No, what you said is absolutely not true.
Windows 7 was a very major departure from Windows XP, whole directory structures were changed, they're not even remotely similar.

The directory structure changes from XP to Vista/7 are very minor. They mainly effect the user directories which are a minor part of any OS. One cannot call changing the structure of the %UserProfile% directory a major departure.

Things that run on XP *do not run* unmodified on Windows 7, which is the true test of 'compatibility'.

Perhaps you are not aware but those programs that run in XP which do not run in 7 are issues that arise from backward compatibility with the Windows 9x series. The fact that XP could even run those Windows 95/98 apps at all using a different kernel was an amazing piece of work by Microsoft. Apps written for XP but without 95/98 support run just fine in Windows 7.

Preferably not Learntousequotes, learn_to_use_quotes, or LearnToUseQuotes.

If windows is all about GUI and clicks (which is kind of implicit in the name), then the extent of a token is determined by the linkage from the displayed screen-object to the file-system object. And for the target market, readability beats compatibility with command line by several miles.

Mind you, Unix has ALWAYS allowed space, and tab, and even newline, in file names - in fact, pretty much everything except /. You can have a file called * if you like, but it needs very careful quoting when you rm it. None of the system files were like that, and people learnt to avoid it if they wanted an easy life, and a few script constructs struggle with it. But it was always valid to do it if you so wished. Microsoft did not "choose to allow" whitespace in filenames.

My beef with Windows is having to click something at least every five seconds to keep it doing stuff. I believe this ties the human race to a stupid little box, and that makes Bill Gates the antichrist. I want a computer to work for me whether I am there or not, and that means a decent scripting and schedule environment, and that means Unix/Linux.

I would say that CR/LF was the complete epitome of dumb. That comes from about 1870 when Samual Morse figured how to print from automated telegraph messages. His printer needed separate characters for Carriage Return (which released a rack mechanism that advanced the paper roller sideways after each symbol) and Line Feed (which wound the paper up a sixth of an inch). Gates thought that century-old technology was smart in 1975, and it still has a legacy that seems to be 20% of the newbie queries on this site.

I read a rant by (I think) Kernighan rebutting criticism about Unix using NL to delimit variable length records. He found a mainframe file system that had the following characteristics, holding ForTran source. Every record was 80 bytes long, no trimming, because it was a punched card image, and punched cards were used for the US census in 1904. The only cheap machinery suitable then was that used by banks for sorting and counting dollar bills, so that set the physical size. And the census questions provided for answers totalling 80 characters, so that set the number of columns.

In addition, the mainframe system held 4 bytes per word, so every fixed-length record had an integer containing 22 on the front so you know how long it was. And just in case you wanted to read the source backwards, every record had a 22 at the end also, and each count included both itself and the one at the other end.

Reasons such as what? Afraid of change? It's not your money? Like being a
Microsoft slave. Don't have the knowledge? No support? Don't have the time
to learn? Well yes, the reasons not to change are many. But to a Visionary
the number of reasons to change are many more and even more compelling. No
licensing fees. Free and robust operating system. Selectable graphics user
interface. Available for pay technical support. Many free online Linux
learning courses. Anti-virus and low maintenance. Runs on most systems,
including older legacy machines. Speed of execution is much quicker. One OS
that will run both server and desktop. Free OS that office users can use
for free at home. A strong and rabbid bunch of programmers that fix
problems as they arise, not on the next service pack. Free and easy to
install updates. Free applications that can be modified to enhance your
business operation. And on, goes the list. I recommend leaving the
Microsoft Pack, and joining the GNU/Linux Herd.

That's why standards should be used instead of "flavors".
Imagine that you're a "modern" company, all your applications are built with web interfaces, all the backend have versions for several OS.

If you're moving from MS to other, chances are that you'll have hell on your lap, because it's almost sure that the web interface uses IE "features".
I've seen this the first time about 1998, when the developer said that he could not do in other browsers what he could in IE. To this day, I do not believe it. I know he didn't have any "dark" unethical reason to choose IE instead of not IE, but that happens every day, and I was never able to find out why.

Why yes, on several occasions I have been contacted to assist migration
from XP to 7 Pro. at several refineries. They used all MS tools, except
when they had problems, third party tools were used. And yes, we did have
problems. Sadly they know no better. Many new enterprise apps are being
written to be browser (cloud) based. This is great as it now becomes
platform independant. Databases can be accessed, program data can be easily
manipulated, and best of all, only the most rabbid MS user will will stay
with their MS OS. People will know what it is to kick the MS Yoke around
their necks by adapting a different OS. After all, a browser is a browser.

Understand that MS's imperfections give way to an incredible service
industry. This is the crutch of things. If MS adapted Linux, the joke would
be on ya'll in the service industry. A hard choice to learn more about this
OS would be for survival. All the money spent on MS certifications will
have been for naught. Users would now have choices.

Sadly, the average user of computing systems have the mentality of a
squirel. Yet with a little hand holding, they will evetually wonder why
they ever put up with MS for all those years. The alternative has been
around for over a decade. Enjoy!

One more thing occurred to me as I set up another Windows 7 machine from an OEM image ... how about more cumulative updates? Rollups are a big deal, especially when an OS has been out for 6 or more months. Windows 9 would be well served to have this (and another SP or rollup for Windows 7 before Windows 9, too).

I would love it if MS could follow the IBM/Fedora type approach of producing a kind of live-cd or rolled-up patch image that you could download, and perhaps burn to a CD. I would then be possible to update all the machines in the office to the same level, without needing to download every patch, apply it,...

I would also like to see a "Just F**** Do it" button for some operations so you don't come back an hour later to find it did nothing more than to produce an "are you really really sure" prompt.

Windows 8, and 8.1 are easier to operate on a tablet than Windows 7 was. Windows 8 is more efficient as is 8.1. I used Start 8 for the first year of using Windows 8, however, on my new machine, an Intel Nuc, I didn't install Start 8, and find it easy to use.

Maybe MS should bring back the Start Menu at least as an option to make transitioning to the Modern UI smoother. $5 for Start 8 is pretty reasonable though if you find yourself lost in the new interface, 8.1 really improved the Start Screen though, probably why I no longer miss the Start Menu.

I use my Nexus 7 and my Nexus 5 every day though. A lot of things I used to have to use my Windows machine for, I use my tablet or phone for. These days more people use touch enabled devices than ever before and my phone is way more powerful than a desktop computer was a decade ago.

If Microsoft aims to compete with Apple and Google it must address these portable devices. Certainly the revenue stream from enterprises with OSs for desktops, laptops and servers will sustain MS through the transition to a more touch centric world but if they don't change the GUI to support touch devices they will lose a huge market share.

I have used and will continue to use Linux, UNIX and Windows, It makes sense to use various OSs for various reasons and I wouldn't like it as much if Microsoft "faded away". There's room in my IT World for a variety of OSs.

If you don't like Windows, don't use it. I like the software Microsoft develops and enjoy programming on MS platforms, so, as for me, I will continue to do so.

I would like to see new, easier to use, more useful software and interfaces and hope to be able to continue to adapt to leverage them. I look forward to Windows 9 and above.

The way I explain the W8/8/1 Start menu to my customers is: Microsoft just twisted the old Windows 7 start menu 90 deg, made it full screen, made the icons bigger, made the icons interactive and made it more customisable. Unfortunately they didn't just stop there, they proceeded to make the rest of the menu a game of hide and seek, with maximum movement of the mouse, menu's you have to cursor over several times, menus that you accidentally activate and menus that are dynamic based on where you are. All of the latter just frustrate and confuse new users and its this "first date" with the new Windows 8 that forms the opinions many have to date.
What they should have had is a touchscreen version, and a non-touchscreen version which had the Windows 7 style menu, this can be justified by the amount of people using either "Start 8" from Stardock or the Classicshell.net mods.
With regard to the Microsoft "Apps" or the "Utility Programs" as I think of them, they are just simplified versions of the desktop programs. I liked the small utilities like Karens programs, FastStone programs, and others like the Nirsoft collection, they do what they do well and with the minimum of fuss.